Follow by Email, Like Cool People Do

Search This Blog

Pages

Murder by Candlelight: The Gruesome Crimes Behind Our Romance with the Macabre

Murder By Candlelight has a great cover and talks a lot about murders in The Past, which means you don't have to feel as guilty as usual when reading about them, because there are not currently people alive who were affected by them.

shut up, Ayn Rand

Short non-fiction books are maybe my favorite. So many non-fiction writers have the tendency to let their work be
bloated & distended, so those who can keep it short
and to the point have my immense respect. Murder By Candlelight is subtitled "The Gruesome Crimes Behind Our Romance With the Macabre." How can you not read that.

It covers a number of murders, starting with the
unshocking-for-our-times murder by Jack Thurtell, moving to James
Greenacre and the murder of Hannah Brown, the murder of Lord William
Russell by his valet, the Ratcliff Highway Murders of 1811, and ending
with some Jack the Ripper. Michael Knox Beran ties in all of these with literature of the time, while talking about the shift from the Enlightenment to the Romantic Era, and it's all very fascinating.

look at this great image I found. Damn.

While I never felt it was made quite clear why the people in the murder cases were murdered, the surrounding detail has stuck with me long enough (I read this months ago) to make it a book I'd consider re-reading. He talks about things like public executions being "a rare public edition of a fact which, like the other great biological acts of birth and copulation, is generally hid under so many decent veils...Even so, there is a barrier. The gallows is a stage, and those who tread it are conscious of playing a part."If you can't handle an author enjoying his own writing, then this is maybe not for you. I chose to like when he wrote phrases like "the vituperative savagery of the 'raff'" and saying Thomas De Quincey was "found in supine thrall to the juice of the poppy," because it meant he was having a good time while writing the book. It's a little unfocused, but it's fun and interesting.The book mainly focuses on De Quincey and Thomas Carlyle and how their writings reflected the age in which they lived. Beran is distinctly anti-the Enlightenment and Modern era when it comes to murder.

The rational or empirical investigator affects to solve the mystery of a particular evil when he has in fact but grazed the surface of its horror; it is as though he had lit a candle and, pleased with the little circle of illumination he had made, flattered himself that he had vanquished darkness.

I want to just quote him on this subject, because he has a lot to say, and it's all excellent. So:

The more one gets into the habit of thinking of evil as a byproduct of social or economic circumstances, or as an anomaly in the neural architecture of the brain, the harder it becomes for one to take it seriously as a permanent element in the soul, one's own included. The first principle of goodness, it would seem, is to accord evil a healthy respect.

Evil loses a good deal of its horror when you succumb to the illusion that it can be done away with by means of better plumbing or a saving pill, the establishment of a more intelligent school curriculum or a reformation of the gene pool.

It's so interesting. I mean, is evil a real thing? Our teachings today would say it's due to something like a head injury that damages key areas of the brain. But are we saying then that someone or something cannot just be evil? My own Christian beliefs blanch from "someone" because I want to believe that all of humanity has the ability to be good. But to outright say that evil doesn't exist in the world, that doesn't seem right either. One of the most thought-provoking things he says in the book is:

Like cancer and mental depression, the phenomenon of the psychopath appears to be of those malignancies which flourishes most abundantly in the sunshine of progress and enlightenment.

This goes along with industrialization creating cities, which created masses of people not knowing each other, which created easy targets for someone with psychopathic tendencies. It's harder to be a serial killer in a small English village. Or, as Beran says:

Modernity was an acid, one that rapidly corroded customs and restraints
that in the past had done something to restrain the sick man's more
vicious impulses. As the same time, the monster-cities of the modern
world gave such a soul a new habitat in which to hunt: he found a
protective coloration in the anonymity of the urban crowd, with which he
could blend himself more easily than his counterparts in less congested
ages.

What do we do about this? Nothing. We can't do anything. We just have to know that one of the opposing sides of our faster, sleeker age is that we have provided humans with evil more prominently inside them than some a much easier time of it than they've ever had before.One of the lines that's stuck with me the most, mainly whenever I look at a detective story, is "Surely it is no coincidence that at the very moment when murder was being degraded into a socio-medical problem, to be alleviated by Acts of Parliament, it was simultaneously being trivialized into a form of light entertainment, the literary equivalent of a parlor game."

Ouch. Yes, sir. That is what we have done. And it makes me feel guilty now every time I think of picking up Lord Peter Wimsey or Robert Galbraith, because murder has been trivialized in our minds. In detective stories, you're just waiting for the next dead body so the detective has more clues (and also so there can be some more action, thank you very much, story, you were starting to drag). We aren't able to take in the seriousness of murder unless it's under the most shocking of circumstances.

A kind of fatality hangs over our choices; this I suppose is why the great stage tragedies seem to us so true in their account of human chances and human destinies. A small sordid character like Greenacre's is but a petty thing in comparison to such a work of tragic art as Othello or Oedipus; yet, studied closely, it discloses the same Sphinx's puzzle of madness and unreason, the same horrors, darknesses, inscrutabilities.

Murder By Candlelight gives you a lot to think about in terms of our modern sensibilities, rethinking dismissing the Romantic era, and what role good and evil play in our world.

As much as Ibsen, De Quincey knew that the trolls and goblins of myth are real, only, like Ibsen, he saw that they are not (as our ancestors supposed) outside of us, but inside.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Okay, people. Here it is. Where you sign up to read the entire Harry Potter series (or to reminisce fondly), starting January 2013, assuming we all survive the Mayan apocalypse. I don't think I'm even going to get to Tina and Bette's reunion on The L Word until after Christmas, so here's hopin'.

You guys know how this works. Sign up if you want to. If you're new to the blog, know that we are mostly not going to take this seriously. And when we do take it seriously, it's going to be all Monty Python quotes when we disagree on something like the other person's opinion on Draco Malfoy. So be prepared for your parents being likened to hamsters.

If you want to write lengthy, heartfelt essays, that is SWELL. But this is maybe not the readalong for you. It's gonna be more posts with this sort of thing:

We're starting Sorceror's/Philosopher's Stone January 4th. Posts will be on Fridays. The first post will be some sort of hilarious/awesome que…

Acclaimed (in England mostly) lady Caitlin Moran has a novel coming out. A NOVEL. Where before she has primarily stuck to essays. Curious as we obviously were about this, I and a group of bloggers are having a READALONG of said novel, probably rife with spoilers (maybe they don't really matter for this book, though, so you should totally still read my posts). This is all hosted/cared for/lovingly nursed to health by Emily at As the Crowe Flies (and Reads) because she has a lovely fancy job at an actual bookshop (Odyssey Books, where you can in fact pre-order this book and then feel delightful about yourself for helping an independent store). Emily and I have negotiated the wonders of Sri Lankan cuisine and wandered the Javits Center together. Would that I could drink with her more often than I have.

INTRODUCTION-wise (I might've tipped back a little something this evening, thus the constant asides), I am Alice. I enjoy the Pleistocene era of megafauna and drinking Shirley Templ…

So this article came out, which isn't really groundbreaking at all, but it happens to have been published the day after I watched part of the NOVA special "Becoming Human," so it's been on my brain anyway.

I was checking out a book a while ago called Cro-Magnon: How the Ice Age Gave Birth to the First Modern Humans, and it was all "Oh dude, our ancestors probably didn't even LOOK at Neanderthals. No way. 'Cause they would've been like, RIDICULOUSLY ugly."

That's right. Your lady ancestor, at some point, sidled up to a Neanderthal gentleman and said "Hey. How's it goin'?

Because all non-Africans ('cause the Africans stayed put instead of traipsing around becoming the Don Juans of prehistoric Europe) have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA. So the above scenario DEFINITELY happened. Which is disheartening NOT because of my huge Neanderth…